Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGATEWAY AT PROSPECT AMENDED ODP / ADDITION OF PERMITTED USE - ODP160001 - CORRESPONDENCE - RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTSE§ Farnsworth GROUP June 21, 2016 Ted Shepard City of Fort Collins Planning P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO80522-0580 RE: Case Number: NIA Title: Gateway at Prospect ODP/ADP Owner/Applicant: FortCollins/1-25 Interchange Corner, LLC Owner Contact: Tim McKenna and Randy Samelson Parcel Numbers}: NIA IAf W&fll;gt Point Road, Suite 105 Colorado 80525-9770 p 970.484.7477 f 970.484.7488 www.f.w.com I www.greennavigatlon.com On behalfofthe Boxelder Sanitation District (BSD), Farnsworth Group has reviewed the Overall Development Plan identified as: Master Utility Plan review for the Gateway at Prospect multi-zoned/multi-use development. The Utility Plan proposes sanitary sewers running throughout the development connecting to BSD's existing sanitary sewers. The District hereby advises as follows: Itl There is no objection to this proposal. Itl Responses required to comments below. D The Districtwill respond atthe hearing date of Comments: 1) This property iswithin the Boxelder service area and has existing sewers adjacent to the property. Additional information shall be required infuture submittals, including (but not limited to) connection and termination call.outs. RESPONSE: Additional information has been added to the ODP plan 2) Significant sewer relocations will berequired asdevelopment occurs within this site. Coordinationwith BSDwill be required aspartofany development plan particularlywith all Parcels shown. RESPONSE: The project team has coordinated with BSD to create the proposed ODP Plan. The proposed relocation of the BXI through the Gateway site was approved by BSD in previous meetings. A portion of the commercial parcels are expected to be serviced by the existing BXI line that will continue south of Prospect Road. This was confirmed in a call with Brian Zick. This plan serves as the general framework for the sanitary connection. At the time of PDP, additional details will be provided in regards to proposed alignment and construction details. The District has adequate ca pacityto servicethe property referenced above. The District isinfull compliancewith Federal and State water quality requirements. We lookforward to review future submittalsonthis project. Pleasefeelfreeto contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Brian Zick, P.E. District Engineer cc Karen Reynolds. Boxelder Sanitation District's General Manager RESPONSE: Acknowledged. We will move forward with the ODP package, with the trail located as currently proposed, based on the comments we have received. I will let you know when I get on the T-board planning group with the trail questions.. they meet once a week and I hope to be on their agenda soon. I hope this helps, please contact me with any questions at 970.224.6096 or/ cell at 218.4926 Thanks, Matt Hi Kristen, Park Planning likes the Gateway concept plan but we do have a couple of quick comments. As well as, this site had been identified as a joint use site for Parks, Stormwater and Natural Areas. I forwarded the ODP concept on to their departments (Shane Boyle and Mark Sears) and asked if they have any comments. Regarding the neighborhood park layout: o We like the park's central location buffered by the proposed development. RESPONSE: Acknowledged -thank you. o We recognize the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan calls out 4 acres, but six acres is preferable. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. o The areas adjacent to Dry Creek and the Lake Canal are potential Natural Areas and Stormwater areas; please coordinate with Mark Sears and Shane Boyle. RESPONSE: Per Rebecca Everette in Environmental Planning, coordination is not currently necessary. If this should change, we will work with Staff to determine how to move forward. o Provide street designs with on -street parking. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This level of detail will be provided at the time of an PDP/FDP submittal. o City is not obligated to develop the roadways. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. o Provide a 50' wide continuous easement for the trail system. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This level of detail will be provided at the time of an PDP/FDP submittal. o Trail location is ok between the development and Dry Creek, but if Natural Areas or Stormwater own/or maintain the open space there is a potential to move the trail away from the back of the buildings. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. We will move forward with the ODP package, with the trail located as currently proposed, based on comments -to -date. o The north trail connection follows the Lake Canal alignment not dry creek. Although if the neighborhoods want access at Dry Creek or E Locus Street/Pleasant Acres Drive we would connect. RESPONSE: The trail has been revised to follow Lake Canal. o I am working with the transportation planning coordination group to analyze the trail crossing at Prospect. This crossing will impact the trail location within your development and how we match up with the trail running south down the Box Elder drainage. I always assumed it went under the bridge at prospect.. more to come as we would prefer to provide a grade separated crossing at Prospect and then weave through your development adjacent to the creeks. Otherwise, the A.P.U. risks being considered isolated and not connected to larger neighborhood. RESPONSE: We have coordinated with Engineering regarding an expanded ped/bike connection along the road, crossing the Boxelder Creek. Engineering supports this idea and would prefer a singular crossing to several crossings. We will continue to work with Engineering and Planning as we move into PDP/FDP design to ensure the street section is acceptable. • Sections 4.5(E)(4) and 3.8.30(F)(2) require a minimum of three building designs. The standard is specific and states that "building designs shall be considered similar unless they vary significantly in footprint size and shape. "The mere provision of two sizes of buildings does not meet this standard. Staff recommends that in order for the A.P.U. to be considered appropriate for the L-M-N zone, four distinct building designs beprovided. RESPONSE: This note has been added to the ODP under APU Parameters, #2. Along public streets and SLPD's, no two similar building designs shall be placed in sequence. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This level of detail will be depicted on plans at the time of a PDP/FDP submittal. • For the buildings that directly face Boxelder Estates, the applicant is encouraged to increase the front (street -facing) setback, and lowerthe profile of these buildings from three to two stories, or at least lower the ends of the building to two stories while retaining a three story centralcore. RESPONSE: Per a meeting with Ted Shepard on June 30th, 2016, this comment is no longer applicable. An APU exhibit has also been provided as part of this submittal package which shows the distance between the Gateway at Prospect property and the nearest houses. • Staff recommends that the applicant commit to the use of masonry, such as brick or stone, for at least the first floor, and in other accent areas, in orderto establish a level of quality thatjustifies the A.P.U. in the L-M-N zone district. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This level of detail will be depicted on plans at the time of a PDP/FDP submittal. This note has been added to the ODP under APU Parameters, #3. • Staff recommends that for the overall L-M-N zone district, the applicant consider providing five housing types versus the required minimum of four. Please note that a single family detached dwelling that is alley loaded constitutes a housing type. RESPONSE: This note has been added to the ODP under APU Parameters, #1. • Further, staff recommends that Small Lot Single Family Detached Dwellings and Two -Family Dwellings be distributed throughout the L-M-N area and not clustered into individual pods. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 17. The A.P.U. parameters will need to be specifically noted on a plan sheet inorder for future potential developers to be fully informed of the requirements that allow multi -family development, at the proposed intensity measures, to be allowed in the L-M-N zone district. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Please refer to the APU Parameters on Sheet 1 of the ODP. As always, please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely: Ted Shepard Chief Planner 4. WHERE BUILDINGS FACE PUBLIC STREETS AND STREET -LIKE PRIVATE DRIVES, BUILDINGS SHALL HAVE GROUND -FACING UNITS WHICH HAVE ITS OWN INDIVIDUAL FRONT DOOR ENTRANCE WITH FRONT PORCH. PUBLIC STREETS AND STREET -LIKE PRIVATE DRIVES SHALL HAVE DETACHED SIDEWALKS, SIX FOOT WIDE PARKWAYS, STREET TREES AND ON -STREET PARKING (PARALLEL OR DIAGONAL). ALL INTERNAL ROADS WITHIN THE MULTI -FAMILY PARCEL SHALL BE CONNECTORS. • The emphasis of the site plan should be nottocreatean i nwardly-oriented apartment complex, served byan internal network of private driveways and parking lots,but,rather, to establish aframework of public streets and Street- Like Private Drives [see Section3.6.3(N)]which can be named and upon which buildings can front and take an address. SLPD's can also bededicatedasEmergencyAccessEasements forfire access. (You may recallthatthree- story buildings requirea26'-30'widefireaccess lanealong one long side of a rectangular building, where fire apparatus isableto stage nocloserthan 15 feet and nofurtherawaythan 30feetfrom the building.) RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Please refer to notes included on APU exhibit above. Staff acknowledges that due to the polygon shape of the parcel, some buildings will have to be placed internal to the site. To the maximum extent feasible, these buildings must front on the SLPD's. RESPONSE: Please refer to notes included on APU exhibit above. • Parking is allowed on a SLPD and may be either parallel or diagonal, but not 90-degree head -in. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. • Parking should not be along public streets orSLPD's. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Parking lots will not be located in front of buildings along SLPD's. • Where buildings are not able to be served by either a public street or SLPD, they must be connected per the requirements of Section 3.5.2(0). This requires a sidewalk connection to a public street via either a connecting walkway not exceeding 200 feet or a Major Walkway Spine not exceeding 350 feet. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. • Please note there is a specific definition of what constitutes a Major Walkway Spine (Section 5.1.2). RESPONSE: Acknowledged. • Where buildings face public streets or SLPD's, there should be individual unit entrances facing the street with connecting walkways and front porches or stoops. The prototypical multi -family building, with common breezeway entrances and stairwells, must be minimized. Individual entrances facing streets reinforces a town -like pattern and minimizes the pod -like isolated development pattern of an apartmentcomplex. RESPONSE: This note has been added to the ODP under APU Parameters, #5. • SLPD's include a detached sidewalk, parkway and street trees on both sides for walkability and safety. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This level of detail will be depicted on plans at the time of a PDP/FDP submittal. This note has been added to the ODP under APU Parameters, #4. • There must be strong connections to the commercial center located on the east side of Boxelder Creek. This may require a separate bike/pedestrian bridge in addition to the public street, that is labeled as "Access B" in the TIS, that may be widened to include a bike lane (even though itmay be classified as a local street). RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Please see revised APU narrative. 13. Sections 3.5.1, 4.5(E)(4) and 3.8.30: Staffs fundamental comment here is for the request for an A.P.U. focus on two areas: A. The relationship between the A.P.U. and Boxelder Estates RESPONSE: Acknowledged. APU exhibits and additional narrative have been provided per working meetings with Ted Shepard. B. The overall performance of the A.P. U. such that itnotjust meets all applicable standards but exceeds thesestandards. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Additional narrative and notes on the ODP have include how the standards are being exceeded. 14. Staff emphasizes that the application for an A.P.U. carries the burden of demonstrating that the proposed use will perform at a high level. Under Section 1.3.4(A), the Purpose Statement provides the following guidanc: "Under this process, the applicant may submit a plan that does not conform to the zoning, with the understanding that such plan will be subject to a heightened level of review, with close attention being paid to compatibility and impact mitigation." RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Please see revised APU narrative. 15. Also, please note that under Section 1.3.4(E), City Council may add conditionsof approval in order to accomplish the purpose of the A.P.U. process and or prevent or minimize adverse impacts and to ensure compatibility of uses, or the intensity of such uses. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. 16. Staff strongly encourages the applicant to demonstrate compliance with an A.P.U. residential project that performs at a level that exceeds baseline standards. Toward this end, Staff provides the following: • Staff strongly encourages that the site plan be revisited. To the maximum extent feasible, buildings should front on public streets. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. All but two of the current buildings are oriented towards the roads. Due to site shape constraints and a Greeley Water Line which runs diagonally through the southern portion of the site, there are two buildings which have not been oriented towards a road. An exhibit has been provided which includes the following notes: 1. THE LEVEL OF SITE DESIGN DEPICTED IS SCHEMATIC ONLY. THE DESIGN SHALL BE REFINED WITH FUTURE ENTITLEMENT PACKAGES. CERTAIN SITE CONSTRAINTS WILL NEED TO BE CONSIDERED WITH FUTURE DESIGN. THESE INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO (a) THE GREELEY WATER LINE WHICH RUNS DIAGONALLY THROUGH THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE APU PARCEL AND (b) THE IRREGULAR SHAPE OF THE PARCEL. 3. TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE, BUILDINGS WILL BE ORIENTED IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER OF PRIORITY: (a) PUBLIC STREETS; (b) STREET -LIKE PRIVATE DRIVES (c) PRIVATE DRIVES (d) 200-FOOT CONNECTING WALKWAY (e) 350-FOOT MAJOR WALKWAY SPINE 4. Please clarify the size and density of the apartment complex parcel. Isit20.8or12.4? Howdoyouderive 12.4from20.8? Indetermining the density, are you following the requirments of Section 3.8.18 —Residential Density Calculations? RESPONSE: The Multi -Family in LMN (Per APU Plan) table on the ODP, Sheet 1, has been revised to clarify this information. The LMN portion of the multi -family site is 12.4 AC, which requires the APU. The total multi -family parcel is 20.8 AC. This includes both LMN and E zone districts. The APU does not apply to the E zone district. 5. We need to see that at the O.O.P. level, for all of the L-M-N, including the portion that is subject to the A.P.U., the overall density does not exceedthe maximum of 9.00 dwelling units per gross acre (49.3?, 55.2?) Staff Comments Per Review Criteria: RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This information has been provided in the Multi -Family in LMN (Per APU Plan) table on the ODP, Sheet 1. 6. Section 1.3.4(C)(1): Please note that, as mentioned, "Multi -Family" is already permitted in the L-M-N therefore the focus needs to be on the three criteria that address residential intensity and not simply the land use per se. These three parameters result in an M-M-N-like apartment complex in the L-M-N. How is this appropriate in the L-M-N given the specific context of the area? Please address the context of Boxelder Estates as a County Subdivision and the fact that the O.O.P., and its (49.3?, 55.2?) total acres of L-M-N is currently vacant. 7. Section 1.3.4(C)(2): Please address the three measures of intensity and how this results in an apartment complex, not Multi -Family as a land use per se. I would note that the A.P.U. is appropriate partially because this portion of the L- M-N (12.4 acres?) is part of a larger L-M-N zone district (49.3? 55.2? acres) that is being master planned as a part of a 177 acre O.O.P. This allows for the A.P.U. to be fully integrated into a larger mixed -use cohesive master planned neighborhood similar to Bucking Horse, Rigden Farm, Oak Ridge, Miramont, etc. This is not an isolated L-M-N parcel. RESPONSE: This information has been added to the APU narrative. 8. Section 1.3.4(C)(3) Compatibility needs to be addressed by describing the design features. Please provide the analysis that the A.P.U. (apartment complex) is compatible with Boxelder Estates and this isbecause... (list the anticipated design attributes). RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Please see APU exhibits and revised APU narrative. 9. Regarding impact mitigation, this criterion deals with the relationship between Boxelder Estates and the A.P. U. Please describe the character of Boxelder Estates. When was it platted? What is the County zoning? What is the range of lot sizes? Are the streets gravel or paved or a combination? Arethere agricultural activities? About how old are the houses (+l-)? Please go into detail about their purchase of the strip of land to form their own buffer (size, shape, location) and how this precludes streets and traffic from accessingtheir neighborhood. RESPONSE: This information has been added to the APU narrative. 10. Section 1.3.4(C)(4): Please focus not on the land use per se, but on how the three intensity measures, that result in an apartment complex, do not create any of the listed adverse impacts. You may want to cite existing examples in mixed- use neighborhoods where multi -family (at M-M-N-like intensity) are located in equivalent proximity to single family with any of the listed adverse impacts being manifested. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Please see revised APU narrative. 11. Section 1.3.4(C)(5): This criterion requires that the predominant character of the area be described (Boxelder Estates), and relate this character to the A.P.U. and then indicate that this relationship does not change the predominant character. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Please see revised APU narrative. 12. Section 1.3.4(C)(6): Please specifically address the three intensity measures that result in an apartment complex. Planning, Development and Transportation Services Current Planning 281 N. College Ave. PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/currentp/anning June 16, 2016 Kristin Turner TB Group 444 Mountain Avenue Berthoud, CO 80513 Dear Kristin: Here are the staff comments forthe Gateway at Prospect request for Addition of Permitted Use inthe L-M-N zone district. 1. As proposed, the request is essentially to add a portion of an apartment complex, at a certain level of intensity, in the L-M-N zone. Staff needs to have more specific data than provided on the O.O.P. We need to know the extent, the data, the numbers of buildings, units, acreage within the L-M-N portion of the multi- family project so we can see how the L-M-N is being impacted, and how this compares/contrasts to the L-M-N maximum allowances. For example, how much of the complex is in each zone in terms of acreage, buildings and dwelling units? Itwould also be helpful to know which zone the clubhouse/amenity area is in. Perhaps the multi -family site plan can include the zone district line. RESPONSE: Please refer to the Multi -Family in LMN (Per APU Plan). Additional information on the LMN zone has been provided showing that the overall LMN density will remain at or below 9 du/ac. 2. The application needs to specifically address not simply that the proposed use is multi -family, which is already a permitted use in the L-M-N, per se, but the fact that the multi -family will be arranged in an M-M-N-like development pattern with the following intensity attributes: RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This information has been added to the APU narrative. • Greater than 12d.u.'s per building, Sec. 4.5(E)(4)(a); • Greater than 14,000 square feet per building, See.4.5(E)(4)(i); • Greater than 12 d.u./gross acre of residential land, Sec.4.5(0)(1)(c). 3. The fundamental aspect is the consideration of an increased level of residential intensity within a portion of the L-M-N, on vacant land, within an O.D.P. at a distance (please specify) from an existing County subdivision. This request for an A.P.U. needs to address the facts that: RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This information has been added to the APU narrative. • The site, and the O.O.P., is currently vacant. • The compatibility and impact mitigation issues require an analysis of the relationship of the apartment complexto Boxelder Estates. • The request is being made not by the end -user developer/applicant. This means that the terms of the A.P.U. will obligate the future developer. (Note that any future changes to an approved A.P.U. will be subject to Section 1.3.4(F). Each of these conditions factor into the overall analysis.